About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
CNNW 7
MSNBCW 6
MSNBC 4
WBAL (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CSPAN 1
KQED (PBS) 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
these are people who spent their whole lives dealing with the fall-out of roe v. wade. they have seen what it's done the court and the country. further more, they can see the political movement is accelerating among the people and there may not be a need for court. >> john: snarl >> ironically, justice ginsberg stalwart liberal of court in a speech before going on the court talked about roe v. wade as stopping the natural evolution and political accept tans of what was the more changing on abortion and that it caused the strife. the one lesson is that allow the process to develop through referenda and popular vote. if there is a change in the culture, it will happen. do not impose a rule on the country from above, because if they impose on the country same-sex marriage, it will cause the reaction on abortion. people will feel they don't have a voice and they should in a democracy. >> john: all right. you won this week's viewers' choice, 74% goes to you. what is the question? >> landslide. the question is in three months, will bashar assad be president of syria? in exile in iran or russia? or
, especially justice roberts court is wary of roe v. wade and will not throw out arrangements in 30 or 40 states and will resolve the case. only section 3 is as issue. i believe the court does not want to be overturning arrangements throughout the country on something to delicate. they've learned a lesson that that's not the right role. >> that's talk about that. people are making the comparison to 1973, roe v. wade. 37 states, by law or in their constitutions now ban same-sex marriage but they're legal in nine states as well as the nation's capital, washington, d.c. a new poll, 40% say they approve same-sex marriage. 30% support legal unions, 24% say same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter in any union. president obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage though he wants to leave it to the state issue. some people as bill suggested are comparing this to the 70s when opinion was evolving on abortion. the states seemed to work it out and the court came down with a big ruling and 40 years later we're having a holy war on the issue. how do you see the court reacting? do you see
ruling. if the supreme court does for gay marriage what it did for abortion and roe v. wade and said, no, this is not in the hands of the people. we're going to say there's gay marriage, that would do a lot to fire up the republican base and could turn this issue on its head and it could become a big winner for republicans because they'd feel disenfranchised. >> what about the flip side? what if the republican goes that way, their base doesn't get fired up. democrats have relied on saying to some voters, that other party is not with you. if the republican got with them, does that take this off the table for democrats? >> well, i actually think it takes it off the table and that's good news for americans in general. i mean, i think this issue is a little bit broader than politics. and i know that's weird to say here in washington, but what i think the problem with the stance that the republican party has taken right now is that it's on the wrong side of history. and we have seen throughout history that when there's a group of people that want to deny another group of people less rights an
angeles. >>> headquarters in atlanta this is "early start weekend." some are calling it the next roe v. wade. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >> all of those who argued for nonintervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >>> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons and some lawmakers are saying it is too late to stop mass destruction. >>> what is going on with netflix? another major blunder by the ceo. why he is being investigated by the ccc. >>> it is saturday, december 8th. good morning, everyone. i'm randi kaye. victor blackwell is off today. we start with a landmark decision by the supreme court. the justices decided to hear two ca cases. joe johns has a look. >> randi, after weeks of speculation the court decided to take up two cases on same-sex marriage. the first one about the defensive marriage act. windsor against the united states. they were married in toronto, canada, in 2007. spi
or disagrees with the notion of gay marriage. in 1992 in roe v. wade he wrote our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. he's personally opposed to abortion, but voteded in the opposite. there's also in 1996, kennedy was ruling -- voter measure that repealed gay rights ordnances. he wrote the measure was born of on nosty towards gays. the constitution prohibits laws signalling out citizens for general hardships. those are pretty strong words that sound as though he's in the bag. >> i would never consider any justice in the bag, but i think justice kennedy has some very powerful liberty rulings to be proud of and this will be should he rule the right way, consistent with his jurisprudence of liberty. i think all these judges have to ask themselves knowing where the country's going, where the people are, do i want to be the last gasp of prejudice or stand on the right side of history. >> as a final question, now that the court will likely make the decision, if it's not the decision that you are seeking, would you be regretful that the movement decided
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
by next summer that is groundbreaking for gay marriage rights as roe v. wade was for abortion in the 1970s, potentially at least after they agreed hear arguments on the defense of marriage act and proposition 8. justice correspondent pete williams joins me. pete, the fact that they took both of these cases, what is the significance from your analysis? >> well, it's the prop 8 case, andrea, that could be the biggy. it could be very narrow. the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raise
liberate california or create a gay roe v. wade. s acceptance is only growing. kennedy can only give the gay rights movement a decisive final victory. the train that is the gay rights movement cannot be stopped. gays will continue coming out and demanding rights and suing for equality until they win. because as edie said, marriage matters. the opposition can only build dams to hold off the inevitable tidal wave of justice because we're talking about something fundamental in society, the right to choose your nuclear family without being penalized. the right to have your relationship respected. isn't that what the pursuit of happiness is about? for me the pursuit of happiness though is tossing to martin bashir. >> thank you, toure. and you have stolen some of my time so i'm not going to talk to you. good afternoon. it's monday, december the 10th, and this thing is going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better. ♪ >> we'd like to announce we have reached an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> get in a room and make the changes that are needed. >> it sounds like the pre
, roe v. wade was thought to be in imminent peril. and i think what 2012 did was to reconfigure all of that. it feels as if the ice is breaking, as if you had three states for the first time through popular vote, for example, endorse same sex marriage. you had the people of california in a popular referendum vote to tax themselves to address their state's chronic deficit. these are things that may in the long run be as important as the re-election of barack obama. >> woodruff: how do you see this year? >> well, in the '80s and '90s there was a tendency to think that the president, voters who vote for president are center right and the republicans had an varntion '80s and '90s. in the wake of this election, you have to go back to 1988 to find a republican president who was elected by anything other than a squeaker, that probably tells something that i think the electorate, exactly as you are saying, maybe is beginning to shift. >> woodruff: but again, we've had moments in history when one party or another seemed to hit a bend in the road, when when popular opinion changed. michael, a
roe v. wade was thought to be in imminent peril. and i think what 2012 did was to reconfigure all of that. it feels as if the ice is breaking, as if you had three states for the first time through popular vote for example endorse same sex marriage. you had the people of california in a popular referendum vote to tax themselves to address their state's chronic deficit. these are things that may in the long run be as important as the re-election of barack obama. >> woodruff: how do you see this year? >> well, in the '80s and '90s there was a tendency to think that the president voters who vote for president are center right and the republicans had an varntion '80s and '90s. in the wake of this election you have to go back to 1988 to find a republican president who was elected by anything other than a squeaker, that probably tells something that i think the electorate, exactly as you are saying maybe is beginning to shift. >> woodruff: but again, we've had moments in history when one party or another seemed to hit a bend in the road when when popular opinion changed. michael, as you
become more divisive than roe v. wade decision. this was troubling. ruth bader ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices, she in february questioned the timing of the abortion decision and suggests it may have contributed to the on-going bitter debate about abortion. not that the judgment was wrong but it moved too far, too fast. that was from ginsburg. those are the things that make you worry. a little shpilka in my kinectazoid. chris perry who i love is a lot more selfish than i am. [ applause ] they could have gotten married today if they had not taken the course. she said as much as sandy and i want to be married we want everyone in the united states to be able to be married. we've learned to be patient of the process. what we wanted was the biggest boldest outcome as possible. that's still what i'm hoping for so there! [ applause ] hmm! that's what ted olson thinks. he knows a little something a little something a little something about law. joe in pittsburgh, you're on the "the stephanie miller show
. >>> some are calling it the next "roe v. wade" or brown versus board of education. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >>> all of those who argued for non-intervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons. now some lawmakers are saying it may be too late to stop mass destruction. >>> and could this be the end of "gangnam style" mania? why pop sensation psy is apologizing for some anti-american lyrics. [ telephones ringing ] at chevy's year-end event, we have 11 vehicles that offer an epa-estimated 30 mpg highway or better. yeah? hey. hey. where's your suit? oh, it's casual friday. oh. [ male announcer ] chevy's giving more. this holiday season, get a 2013 malibu ls for around $199 per month, or get $1,000 holiday bonus cash. it's hard to see opportunity in today's challenging environment. unless you have the right perspective. bny mellon wealth manageme
headquarters in atlanta, this is "cnn saturday morning." some are calling it the next roe v. wade or brown v. board of education. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >> all of those who argued for nonintervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >>> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria, as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons. now some lawmakers are saying it may be too late to stop mass destruction. >>> and a toddler taken from the only parents she ever knew because of a little known federal law. now they're fighting to get her back, and may be on their way to the supreme court. i'll talk with them live. >>> good morning, everyone. i'm randi kaye. it is 10:00 on the east coast, 7:00 on the west. thanks so much for starting your day with us. it was supposed to be just for laughs. humor. the listeners with a lighthearted prank. two radio deejays called the london hospital where the duchess of cambridge was being treated and tricked a nurs
of the same-sex marriage issue. that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> thanks for that. >>> back to you, molly. you were doing a big piece of this for "the atlantic" for next week. what did you find most interesting in your research thus far? >> the really amazing thing about this issue is how far public opinion has come in a relatively short time on the scale of sort of large-scale social change. when gallup recently polled public opinion on gay marriage, it had the support of 53% of the american public. back in 1996 that was 27%. and that was the atmosphere in which president clinton and the congress were passing the defense of marriage act. since then, every single appellate court that has considered it has ruled against it. that's something that advocates feel very confident about the supreme court going their way. on the proposition 8 case, advocates are a little bit more nervous. this is a conservative court. and if they do rule against proposition 8 and gay marriage in california, that would strike a blow against gay marriage that could last f
roe v. wade and all of that. but this is happening at record pace, more so than i think any civil rights battle. somebody made the point it was because -- more and more people obviously have learned that they know somebody gay, whereas obviously they were saying that the civil rights movement you didn't suddenly discover someone is black. >> right. >> stephanie: but i think as you say they do look at politics, look at the same polling we have, and look at the arc of history, and say a kennedy has the chance to do the brown versus board of education of our time. >> sure. we don't know who voted to take up the proposition 8 case, right? at least four justices have to be supportive of the coming on board. could it have been for liberal justices thinking that kennedy, the presumed swing vote might be with them or those opposed to marriage equality presuming that kennedy might be with them. but i think that the court despite being above the fray, as it were it interacted with the political realities and the world, so it is standoffish but it cannot help being effec
diminished by these activist judges. actually roe v. wade a took away the right to life. we encourage the culture of death by giving money to planned parenthood that kill more people. it's terrible what happened in connecticut, but unborn persons killed with the support of taxpayer money, these are persons, too. host heast your response. guest: i don't see the connection here. and of course, we have seen gun violence against those who actually do provide reproductive services and abortion services, gun violence against doctors. i don't see the connection between the two issues. i do think the respect for life is something we have built on in this country and that means different things to different people. i would respectfully disagree with you on the connection between gun violence and the opportunity for women and their families to make reproductive decisions independent of government intervention. host: chris in florida, democratic caller. caller: i used to hunt and i got rid of my guns. i believe there is one bill that should be put up there and that's that any agent of the federa
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)